Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AmBX

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

AmBX

AmBX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Otr500 (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Otr500 (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Otr500 (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Incubate in draft space. I was the admin who handled the
  proposed deletion; as I stated there, "I'm wondering if it would be prudent to move this article to draft space until Stevenxlead is able to get it tuned up."[1] I'm still inclined to give the article some time for development...provided that some work actually gets done on it. —C.Fred (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comments: I guess there are no COI issues so I am not opposed to incubation. (See below) If I wandered into the article I would trim the last sentence of the lead and the "Product history" section. This would get rid of 13 "citation needed" tags that have been hanging around since 2012. I would also look closely at the "Adoption" section and possible trimming. Since the article was created, and even since the editor mentioned as "possibly" working on it, that put in two years of editing (2010-2012), technology has advanced. I ran across a couple of sources. The company apparently has entered into a partnership with Cisco and Molex, and others such as Fulham Lighting, meaning the article would certainly need a rewrite along with far better sourcing. Otr500 (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment)
      WP:G4. So, I think what needs to be part of any discussion about draftifying this is what to do if it does end up abandoned and deleted per G13. If it's just going to be restored or recreated only to end up be deleted yet again, then that's not really a good thing. So, maybe instead of letting the draft be deleted per G13, it might be better to just delete this now unless someone clearly intends to work on it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • An issue is that there is notability. #1, #2, #3 (2017), and #4 (2014).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement, and avoid directly editing the article as much as possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]

We try to walk in quicksand when concerns are possibly brushed aside or not given enough attention. A person that works for a company with a high enough position, or is anyway involved in company advertisement, absolutely is getting paid if they create or edit related articles, as compared to someone that just works for a company. The difference goes from: a person should, or might, or other "suggestions", to mandates from the WMF. My problem is that I have not dug into the investigative side. If it is brought up or I see it, I make comments, and usually it either becomes a severe issue or not, because someone else seems to also look into it with more knowledge. The past is the past but becomes more relevant if we are waiting in hopes of an editor that wants the article to remain, but since 2012 has not done any editing, and there are indications of paid editing (noted on the talk page), I have to at least look closer. Since paid editing has become more of an issue (especially between 2010-2014) there may be reasons for keeping a low profile.

Concerning this article, I do know

waiting (TNT tipping point) until someone wants to create an article that does not violate policies and guidelines. Otr500 (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete/draftify per nom. IceWelder [✉] 16:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Based on the edits to the page today, I do not see a path forward for this topic as an encyclopedia article. Product without significant coverage in independent sources. As
  WP:TNT, I would have no opposition if an independent editor subsequently created a new article based on independent reliable sources that show notability of the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comments: I am not against any recreation with sourcing per C.Fred. Please note: A discussion that led to the page deletion at User talk:Lyndsayclose (marketing Manager for amBX) "As a business we no longer operate within the video game market and do not produce suitable lighting. I would like to delete the amBX wiki page as it does not reflect our brand anymore and it is creating a confusing message for customers and prospects searching for us on Google. Can you help?". The prod and deletion was apparently and supposedly a path of least resistance but also apparently the opposing editor was not aware of the discussion. Otr500 (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.